Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New Conroe Chips

Evergreen

Evergreen

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 9, 2001
81
0
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Performance Preview

"In the coming weeks - sometime later this summer - Intel will be officially launching a whole line of desktop processors that feature 1333MHz front side bus frequencies, which is a healthy boost from the current desktop standard of 1066MHz. We've actually got one of these new 1333MHz FSB-equipped chips in house, the Core 2 Duo E6750, and while we can't disclose all of the details regarding this processor just yet, we can talk about its performance and overclockability [up to 3.92GHz]. And that's is exactly what we're going to do here today, but first let's get some of the particulars out of the way."

Edit: This chip isn't used in the MacPro, so any upgrade to the lineup around the release date of this chip will be coincidental.
 
I don't think it's going to be used in Mac Pros, the Mac Pros will be always using Workstation-class Xeons or whatever Workstation processor in the future not Conroes because Conroes are desktop processors. Perhaps the Conroe chip might go in a mid-range tower mac but other than the mid-range tower mac I don't see where it could go into the mac line-up, maybe the 24" iMac.
 
You can't say they will always be using Xeon processors. What if Apple wants to get away from the latency issues with FB-DIMMs? Could they not move away from Xeons? Plus, aside from binning standards we aren't aware of, what separates workstation from desktop? Most of the time it is things that are simply turned off in desktop chips, DP or MP, etc. You shouldn't assume the Mac Pro is super elite because it uses a Xeon. And Xeons offer more limitations that damper performance.

If the line goes all octo, they could use a single quad core chip Conroe in a low end Mac Pro.

There are tons of ways Apple could do this. Will they? Probably not.

Whats more, Xeons are essentially (insert current desktop core tech here) binned at what Intel considers workstation class. Keeping up with desktop chip performance and features coukd give us insight into future Xeons.
 
They are not going to use non SMB chips on the Mac Pro...it makes no sense for them to have Mac Pro's with two different motherboards.

Most people don't get it....Mac Pro is NOT a desktop machine, it's a workstation machine.
 
SDAVE said:
They are not going to use non SMB chips on the Mac Pro...it makes no sense for them to have Mac Pro's with two different motherboards.

Most people don't get it....Mac Pro is NOT a desktop machine, it's a workstation machine.
Click to expand...


I agree with SDAVE. Forget the Conroe the Mac Pro is a WORKSTATION that is the bottom line. The next chip will be a 45nm Penryn with Seburg chipsets Stoakley platform.

Seems like the chip will be released in Sept. / Oct. that is when AMD is releasing Barcelona. Hopefully Apple will get first dibbs into this chip.

Memory wise the Mac Pro will stick with FB-Dimms. DDR3 is too expensive and it has high latency just like FB-Dimms. Not much benefits.

The best thing is to get a refurb Mac Pro 4 cores or something to hold you back for a year until Intel releases Nehalem which has the intergrated memory controller in the chip.

Penryn is a little faster than the current chipset due to the faster FSB (1600mhz) with a larger cache (6Mb).
 
SDAVE said:
They are not going to use non SMB chips on the Mac Pro...it makes no sense for them to have Mac Pro's with two different motherboards.

Most people don't get it....Mac Pro is NOT a desktop machine, it's a workstation machine.
Click to expand...

I am just saying they could. Don't put yourself on some platform because you think "you get it." You have no idea what makes sense for Apple. Hell, Apple could do a single CPU version of the Mac Pro with a single quad. Didn't they do that with the G5? Single and Dual versions :rolleyes:

I am not saying they will, I am saying they could if they wanted to. Regardless, desktop chips gives us an idea of what is coming on the workstation side if no information is available. You shouldn't discredit desktop results simply because we won't be getting them. I guess you don't get it :rolleyes:

Another thing, WTH is SMB? Samba? Server Message Block? Maybe you meant, SMP. In which case, Apple could use Core 2 Duos or Athlon X2s since those are multiprocessor no? And are SMP capable considering there are more one than one processor.
 
Same chip with a different Front Side Bus.

The current Mac Pro already uses a 1333Mhz Front Side Bus :)
 
dkoralek said:
And it's not just Xeons, but the high end Xeons. Intel rebadges higher end desktop chips (e.g. some Conroes) as Xeons, too.

cheers.
Click to expand...

Then maybe this means something for the MacPro after all? If the Conroes are stable enough to overclock up to 3.9Ghz, then the Xeons might be getting better as well.
 
Evergreen said:
Then maybe this means something for the MacPro after all? If the Conroes are stable enough to overclock up to 3.9Ghz, then the Xeons might be getting better as well.
Click to expand...

Nope. There are differences between Conroe and Woodcrest (or Kentsfield and Clovertown for the 4-core versions) as Xeons. Woodcrests are based on the core micro-architecture like Conroe, but aren't identical (You can't use multiple chips with systems that support Conroes, e.g.). As far as I recall, Conroes are substantially more overclockable than Woodcrests.

cheers.
 
suneohair said:
I am just saying they could. Don't put yourself on some platform because you think "you get it." You have no idea what makes sense for Apple. Hell, Apple could do a single CPU version of the Mac Pro with a single quad. Didn't they do that with the G5? Single and Dual versions :rolleyes:

I am not saying they will, I am saying they could if they wanted to. Regardless, desktop chips gives us an idea of what is coming on the workstation side if no information is available. You shouldn't discredit desktop results simply because we won't be getting them. I guess you don't get it :rolleyes:

Another thing, WTH is SMB? Samba? Server Message Block? Maybe you meant, SMP. In which case, Apple could use Core 2 Duos or Athlon X2s since those are multiprocessor no? And are SMP capable considering there are more one than one processor.
Click to expand...

Err yes, SMP's, genius.
 
SDAVE said:
They are not going to use non SMB chips on the Mac Pro...it makes no sense for them to have Mac Pro's with two different motherboards.

Most people don't get it....Mac Pro is NOT a desktop machine, it's a workstation machine.
Click to expand...

Most people do get it. They just don't have much of a choice as Apple doesn't have a desktop-class machine anymore.
 
SDAVE said:
Ooh I made a typo...send me to jail!

Want me to go back and find your typos?
Click to expand...

I got what you meant. Regardless, you still made the error of saying Apple would never use non-SMP chips, but dual core chips are SMP. So you error was larger than saying SMB.

Anyhow, you aren't worth my time. Take care. :apple:
 
What? Only CPU's that can be linked together PHYSICALLY are called SMP (Symmetric multiprocessing), thus the Xeons are the ones that are capable of this, not the Core2Duo (Or Quad) line.
 
So entry level SMP isn't real SMP?

You don't know what you're talking about. For a dual core CPU, you will need an SMP compliant kernel...
 
Did you even read the link before assuming that 'I don't know' anything?

XP supports upto 2 physical processors....dual core and quad coe systems are basically cheating the system...if you get a Core 2 Duo, you cannot get a motherboard that supports 2 of these chips because they are not SMP capable.

Long before all this new stuff came out, we used to set up Dual Pentium 3's....I guess you kids in the Mac World aren't that familiar with this stuff, so stick with what you know.
 
SDAVE said:
Did you even read the link before assuming that 'I don't know' anything?

XP supports upto 2 physical processors....dual core and quad coe systems are basically cheating the system...if you get a Core 2 Duo, you cannot get a motherboard that supports 2 of these chips because they are not SMP capable.
...
Click to expand...

So dual core CPU's, like the conroe, are not SMP capable CPU's? Maybe you should read that wiki you just posted...here, I'll quote the wiki for ya

SMP is found in most new desktop machines and in many laptop machines. The most popular entry-level SMP systems use the x86 instruction set architecture and are based on Intel’s Xeon, Pentium D, Core Duo, and Core 2 Duo based processors or AMD’s Athlon64 X2, Quad FX or Opteron 200 and 2000 series processors.
Click to expand...

By the way, I have worked with PA-RISC's, Pentium Pro's and 6-way P3 Xeons...probably before your dual P3 time....
 
abom said:
So dual core CPU's, like the conroe, are not SMP capable CPU's? Maybe you should read that wiki you just posted...here, I'll quote the wiki for ya



By the way, I have worked with PA-RISC's, Pentium Pro's and 6-way P3 Xeons...probably before your dual P3 time....
Click to expand...

The Conroe chips DO NOT support SMP modes (Two PHYSICAL CPUs)...this is why Intel has the Xeon line, which is SMP capable.
 
SDAVE said:
The Conroe chips DO NOT support SMP modes (Two PHYSICAL CPUs)...this is why Intel has the Xeon line, which is SMP capable.
Click to expand...

No one said they did. Conroe chips ARE SMP chips, SMP stands fo "Symmetric multiprocessing".

Which is defined as multiple CPUs, Conroe chips have multiple CPUs. There are two physical CPUs (cores) on a Conroe. So you are still wrong.

Conroe = multiple CPUs in one package
Xeons = multi CPUs on one package and multiple packages.

The definition of SMP is not the same as your Dual P3 days, which of course only you experienced.

Anyhow, quit while you are behind, it will work out better for you. Because to be quite frank your point are idiotic and when you realize it you then turn your rebuttal to something that no one is even arguing. You essentially ignore what someone says and continue to argue with yourself. Stupid really. And I am being nice. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back